Theists have told me that the awe and wonder of the universe is proof enough of god. i agree with the awe and wonder part. Recently went hunting 3 days deep into nowhere and the night sky was clear and absent of light pollution.

it is hard not to have a moment in such circumstances for sure, but to blame it all on god seems to sell the whole beauty of it way short and imo robs us.

Why fall for the low ground, why not use that feeling to kiss this life and love it like there is no other.

don't know what the point of this thread is, mebbe to get the theists to question something about something.

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Well the Catholic Church claims one can know god this way - by observing the 'heavens' yet it doesn't work. Sure we ask questions of the universe, how it got there why does it look like it does and so on, and science is providing answers. Do we really need to invent a deity to suit?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

I don't think we need or should write it all off with a godidit cos it seems to miss the mark for the sake of convenience and not much of beauty is a result of convenient thinking imo.

Logged

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

I was thinking a similar thing a few days ago. I was out walking along the East Lothian coast in Scotland, along the area where John Muir (he of US national parks fame) was brought up. Beautiful scenery, all natural. But it got me thinking; Christians think this is all fake, all artificial, made by another being, we're living on a movie set. What a sad way to view the world.

I don't think we need or should write it all off with a godidit cos it seems to miss the mark for the sake of convenience and not much of beauty is a result of convenient thinking imo.

One of the stereotypes I have seen through the years is that atheists cannot appreciate beauty and wonder because they do not believe in God. It appears to be a false argument, but some theists find comfort in the idea. Stereotypes are handy that way.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Logged

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

That is as truthful as the arts grad saying engineers lack creativity.

Logged

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Sure, you say that science has explained how thunder happens, how lightning happens, how freezing happens, how fire happens, how evolution happens, how gravity happens, etc etc etc. However, you don't know if God needed to create it that way in order for the processes to work in the first place.

In other words, without God none of these processes might be possible in the first place!

How does one go about proving if God is necessary for these processes vs God not being necessary for the processes?

Example: Someone says "Water is just a 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom." Then a believer says, "But why does 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom make water and not something else?"

These are the deeper questions that science can't answer and will never be able to answer. It can only go so far.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

One of the stereotypes I have seen through the years is that atheists cannot appreciate beauty and wonder because they do not believe in God. It appears to be a false argument, but some theists find comfort in the idea. Stereotypes are handy that way.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

You mean that theists find comfort in the idea that their god made everything? Or comfort in the idea that atheists 'cannot appreciate beauty and wonder'? Cos the latter seems a little... mean...

Logged

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

One of the stereotypes I have seen through the years is that atheists cannot appreciate beauty and wonder because they do not believe in God. It appears to be a false argument, but some theists find comfort in the idea. Stereotypes are handy that way.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

You mean that theists find comfort in the idea that their god made everything? Or comfort in the idea that atheists 'cannot appreciate beauty and wonder'? Cos the latter seems a little... mean...

My experience with some theists is they take comfort that in the belief atheists cannot appreciate beauty and wonder.

Yes, it does seem mean. But stereotypes are rarely meant to uplift the object of the stereotype. And, I hasten to add, this stereotype is not common among the theists I have interacted with over the decades.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Logged

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Before mankind originated, there was water. Water existed as H2O at that time. We later discovered that water was composed of 2 hydrogen and one oxygen atoms and found out why it was only possible for the structure to be like that.

We also found that distinct elements were composed in a certain way and that combinations of these elements only gave one substance. We had discovered the chemistry of the universe. It cannot change.

You should imagine the elements to be like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle: some can fit well with some others, some fit but after that, nothing else will fit and some just don’t go together at all.

Now if there had been a god of some kind, he would have thus created a universe in which he could not interfere – his creation of chemical laws (where each electron, atom, molecule, etc, had only one way of doing things) would prevent him. Water into wine instantly would defy the rules, just as turning lead into gold would do. Curing the blind requires changing/creating new molecules from nothing – Now, the law of conservation of energy prevents this. It does not matter who created the law, it is true for everyone.

So when we look at a universe, we can see why it is how it is, and it does not require a god.

In fact, every explanation that involves a god is a better explanation if we remove the god from the equation.

Somewhere on the site, there is a link to the “List of gods” -> there are about 5,000 of them. Not all of the gods claim to have created the universe, but many do. However, all of the gods claim to be able to defy the chemical/physical laws of the universe in some way or another.

Now, as our knowledge has grown, we claim less and less for the power of gods. The claim for their powers rests solely upon our saying about things we do not understand “God did it.”, this is our ignorance.

This pattern is so well established that we can say it is a law/an invariable rule.

Whereas we can say, (i) “There are many things that we thought gods did, but now know are natural processes.” We never say, (ii) “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

One of the stereotypes I have seen through the years is that atheists cannot appreciate beauty and wonder because they do not believe in God. It appears to be a false argument, but some theists find comfort in the idea. Stereotypes are handy that way.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

You mean that theists find comfort in the idea that their god made everything? Or comfort in the idea that atheists 'cannot appreciate beauty and wonder'? Cos the latter seems a little... mean...

My experience with some theists is they take comfort that in the belief atheists cannot appreciate beauty and wonder.

Yes, it does seem mean. But stereotypes are rarely meant to uplift the object of the stereotype. And, I hasten to add, this stereotype is not common among the theists I have interacted with over the decades.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Wow. That is so mean (of those who think that way). It goes along the lines of feeling smug because 'the atheist will undoubtedly be going to hell'. I just shake my head when I hear that sort of thing.

Logged

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

One of the stereotypes I have seen through the years is that atheists cannot appreciate beauty and wonder because they do not believe in God. It appears to be a false argument, but some theists find comfort in the idea. Stereotypes are handy that way.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

You mean that theists find comfort in the idea that their god made everything? Or comfort in the idea that atheists 'cannot appreciate beauty and wonder'? Cos the latter seems a little... mean...

My experience with some theists is they take comfort that in the belief atheists cannot appreciate beauty and wonder.

Yes, it does seem mean. But stereotypes are rarely meant to uplift the object of the stereotype. And, I hasten to add, this stereotype is not common among the theists I have interacted with over the decades.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Wow. That is so mean (of those who think that way). It goes along the lines of feeling smug because 'the atheist will undoubtedly be going to hell'. I just shake my head when I hear that sort of thing.

Perhaps that is how some theists feel when being told they are delusional. Understand, I am not among them now as I understand the people on this website and what it is about. I was hurt at first, to be honest, but that is one of the reasons I enjoy this website so much; it has helped me figure out just what do I believe and why.

Enough soul baring,

OldChurchGuy

Logged

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

"A magical pink invisible rabbit did not create any of the laws of physics or processes."

That statement can not be said as FACT.

Sure, you say that science has explained how thunder happens, how lightning happens, how freezing happens, how fire happens, how evolution happens, how gravity happens, etc etc etc. However, you don't know if a magical pink invisible rabbit needed to create it that way in order for the processes to work in the first place.

In other words, without a magical pink invisible rabbit none of these processes might be possible in the first place!

How does one go about proving if a magical pink invisible rabbit is necessary for these processes vs a magical pink invisible rabbit not being necessary for the processes?

Example: Someone says "Water is just a 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom." Then a believer says, "But why does 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom make water and not something else?"

These are the deeper questions that science can't answer and will never be able to answer. It can only go so far.

...of course without any evidence of a magical pink invisible rabbit, people do tend to think I'm an idiot. But if I can get enough people to believe in my magical pink invisible rabbit then we'll probably not be seen as idiots anymore. And it's so much easier to to use this explanation than ones where I have to think! Look; "What causes gravity - the magical pink invisible rabbit does!" There, wasn't that easier than having to learn maths and stuff?!

« Last Edit: April 28, 2014, 07:48:36 AM by Ron Jeremy »

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

I was thinking a similar thing a few days ago. I was out walking along the East Lothian coast in Scotland, along the area where John Muir (he of US national parks fame) was brought up. Beautiful scenery, all natural. But it got me thinking; Christians think this is all fake, all artificial, made by another being, we're living on a movie set. What a sad way to view the world.

Hi Ron. Believing that another being created something doesn't mean the creation is fake and artificial. Why do you reach that conclusion? If it was created, and it's beautiful, that gives us an insight into the creator.

I'd have thought looking at beautiful scenery and believing it's a fluke of nature leads more to that conclusion.

I was thinking a similar thing a few days ago. I was out walking along the East Lothian coast in Scotland, along the area where John Muir (he of US national parks fame) was brought up. Beautiful scenery, all natural. But it got me thinking; Christians think this is all fake, all artificial, made by another being, we're living on a movie set. What a sad way to view the world.

Hi Ron. Believing that another being created something doesn't mean the creation is fake and artificial. Why do you reach that conclusion? If it was created, and it's beautiful, that gives us an insight into the creator.

I'd have thought looking at beautiful scenery and believing it's a fluke of nature leads more to that conclusion.

I can sort of see both sides of this. On the one hand, if there was a being out there who could create a universe of such amazing size and complexity, then his ability to design things of such surpassing beauty would be something to marvel at, and probably be seen more as a work of art than artificiality. On the other hand, it would definitely tend to raise the question of just why he felt it necessary to create such a vast amount of absolute nothingness outside of our planet, and why, indeed, so much of our planet is so hostile and unsuited to human life. And that's not even getting into natural disasters which, awesome as they may be, spread devastation and misery. All those things would be insights into the creator as well, after all...and don't exactly show a side of him quite as worthy of adoration.

Seeing those things as flukes of nature, however, seems so exciting...I love that nature is capable of producing, from a finite number of chemicals, such beauty from the scale of mountain ranges to tiny, perfect snowflakes, and that we are all part of the same matter. It's far more amazing to think of the natural processes which went into carving this world, and even the fact that those same processes, in different forms, can produce disaster is far easier to accept and even admire than it would be if it had to be attributed to a creator.

Hurricanes, typhoons and tornados, earthquakes, tsunamis, raging fires all do their part to shape the landscape and even have their own fierce beauty, but why would a loving creator feel it necessary to use them as agents to shape an evolving planet rather than setting all the land masses in convenient and beautiful settings for us to enjoy from the start?

Before mankind originated, there was water. Water existed as H2O at that time. We later discovered that water was composed of 2 hydrogen and one oxygen atoms and found out why it was only possible for the structure to be like that.

You claim we found out why it was only possible to be like that but did not say the answer.

We also found that distinct elements were composed in a certain way and that combinations of these elements only gave one substance. We had discovered the chemistry of the universe. It cannot change.

But, this doesn't explain why the chemical compounds give us the result. They must have been programmed in there by a designer. It's like a code. "H20 will be water" must be programmed into the atoms in order for them to turn to water.

Now if there had been a god of some kind, he would have thus created a universe in which he could not interfere – his creation of chemical laws (where each electron, atom, molecule, etc, had only one way of doing things) would prevent him. Water into wine instantly would defy the rules, just as turning lead into gold would do. Curing the blind requires changing/creating new molecules from nothing – Now, the law of conservation of energy prevents this. It does not matter who created the law, it is true for everyone.

Not at all. Someone infinite who created the laws is not bound by the laws. Why? because new laws can be created by the infinite being on a whim.

In fact, every explanation that involves a god is a better explanation if we remove the god from the equation.

Are you not counting the "primordial cells problem?" The first primitive cells that evolved billions of years ago are just cells. You can't go from single simple primitive cells to all the diversity of life you see today. It's just not possible. The cells contain no DNA/genetic information for any other creature except for themselves: the cells.

No one has been able to explain what the first primitive cells evolved into. Cells only become other cells, not other creatures. Nobody has ever said what the 2nd form of life was after the cells.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

This pattern is so well established that we can say it is a law/an invariable rule.

Whereas we can say, (i) “There are many things that we thought gods did, but now know are natural processes.” We never say, (ii) “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

But, this doesn't explain why the chemical compounds give us the result. They must have been programmed in there by a designer. It's like a code. "H20 will be water" must be programmed into the atoms in order for them to turn to water.

No. Atoms appear as a combination of various subatomic particles that, by virtue of their energy, are bound to act in one way. You seem to think that H2O could be wood or hair: it can’t. “Water” is the name we give to it in English.

Quote

But, why is that? Also, someone designed the jigsaw puzzle to be the final result of putting the pieces together.

I ask you again:“This pattern is so well established that we can say it is a law/an invariable rule.

Whereas we can say, (i) “There are many things that we thought gods did, but now know are natural processes.” We never say, (ii) “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Skeptic, why do you think that is?”

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

I was thinking a similar thing a few days ago. I was out walking along the East Lothian coast in Scotland, along the area where John Muir (he of US national parks fame) was brought up. Beautiful scenery, all natural. But it got me thinking; Christians think this is all fake, all artificial, made by another being, we're living on a movie set. What a sad way to view the world.

Hi Ron. Believing that another being created something doesn't mean the creation is fake and artificial. Why do you reach that conclusion? If it was created, and it's beautiful, that gives us an insight into the creator.

I'd have thought looking at beautiful scenery and believing it's a fluke of nature leads more to that conclusion.

Hi MM,

I suppose it depends on which 'interpretation' of the bible one takes as there are limitless ways an individual can interpret it. For example some of my family think the universe is 6000 years old, all the weathering and erosion of Earth was put there by Biblegod in the same way the creator of a model railway layout makes fake weathered features. In their view some supernova have never existed; Biblegod has faked them.

I would describe a universe that comes together without the assistance of an entity as 'natural'. One that has been made, however beautifully, is artificial and fake. Made to resemble a universe where everything has come together without intelligent assistance.

I stand by the terms 'fake' and 'artificial' until I become aware of a feature of the universe that could not under any circumstances have come to exist without a god. So far as I'm aware there has yet to be an observable phenomena can only be explained by circumstances that require a god. If Biblegod exists, so far he has faked his work to appear as if it came about without his help.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

I suppose it depends on which 'interpretation' of the bible one takes as there are limitless ways an individual can interpret it. For example some of my family think the universe is 6000 years old, all the weathering and erosion of Earth was put there by Biblegod in the same way the creator of a model railway layout makes fake weathered features. In their view some supernova have never existed; Biblegod has faked them.

I would describe a universe that comes together without the assistance of an entity as 'natural'. One that has been made, however beautifully, is artificial and fake. Made to resemble a universe where everything has come together without intelligent assistance.

I stand by the terms 'fake' and 'artificial' until I become aware of a feature of the universe that could not under any circumstances have come to exist without a god. So far as I'm aware there has yet to be an observable phenomena can only be explained by circumstances that require a god. If Biblegod exists, so far he has faked his work to appear as if it came about without his help.

Just to clarify: Do you distinguish between something beautiful God (for the sake of the discussion) has made and, say, a beautiful painting and call God's creation fake/artificial but not the painting, because you think God's creation is designed to look like it wasn't created?

Why cheapen nature by invoking your favourite god legend. especially. a crappy xtian one that explains not a single thing we see.

at least indigenous mythsare custom made to describe the observed local natural phenomena. and how to live with it.

the xtian bible in comparison reads like fuked up propaganda .

which historically is how it gets usef.

Logged

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Just to clarify: Do you distinguish between something beautiful God (for the sake of the discussion) has made and, say, a beautiful painting and call God's creation fake/artificial but not the painting, because you think God's creation is designed to look like it wasn't created?

Hope that makes sense.

Beauty is not my point, we could just as easily be talking about a barren lump of space rock. A well tended garden can look as beautiful as a wild woodland glade. But a wild woodland glade that has been made by man, although beautiful, is artificial. Whatever the intentions of the designer, if they attempt to portray it as occurring without help, the result is to deceive me. My point is that if Biblegod has created this universe then he has attempted to hide his handiwork by making it appear as if it it came about without any intelligent intervention. He has pretended evolution made us, he has faked supernova explosions, he has put the fossils of ancient animals in the ground for us to find, pretending that these things died out before we humans arrived. He has faked his artificial universe.Place yourself in that ancient wild woodland glade. Enjoy its beauty, feel its peace, immerse yourself in its ancientness. Now find out it was manufactured six months ago.If he wanted to avoid being called a forger then he should have made his hand in this universe known unequivocally to everyone.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Ron is absolutely correct. If the universe is created, then we are all in an artificial enclosure. It may be nice and Disney-like, but it's no more real than the new Harry Potter attraction. And it gets worse. We're in a zoo. Our cage is really big, but if it's artificial, it doesn't matter if it's 15 billion light years across, it's still a cage. That's what we call an artificial enclosure to contain creatures. A cage.

We're in a zoo. Our cage is really big, but if it's artificial, it doesn't matter if it's 15 billion light years across, it's still a cage. That's what we call an artificial enclosure to contain creatures. A cage.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.